---

name: amr-tables-figures description: Use when building the conceptual exhibits of an Academy of Management Review (AMR) manuscript — process models, 2x2 typologies, multi-level frameworks, and propositions tables that carry theoretical work. These are CONCEPTUAL figures, NOT data plots; AMR has no charts of results because it has no data.

Conceptual Figures & Propositions Tables (amr-tables-figures)

AMR exhibits do theoretical work. There are no scatterplots, bar charts, or regression tables — there is no data. Every figure must be readable directly off the theory: each box is a defined construct, each arrow is a stated proposition or mechanism.

When to trigger

• The theory is built but has no visual model, or the model is decorative
• Your figure is boxes and arrows with no mechanism behind the arrows
• You have many propositions and the reader cannot see their structure
• A typology is asserted in prose but never shown as a grid

The exhibit toolkit

| Exhibit | Use it when | It must show | |---------|-------------|--------------| | Process model | The theory is a sequence / becoming | Stages, triggers, feedback loops, timing — and the engine that drives movement | | 2x2 (or NxM) typology | The phenomenon has theoretically distinct types | Two theory-derived dimensions; mutually exclusive, jointly exhaustive cells; ideally theorized transitions between cells (cf. Oliver's antecedent-conditions × responses logic, AMR 1991, DOI 10.5465/amr.1991.4279002) | | Multi-level framework | The action spans individual ↔ collective | Levels as horizontal bands; emergence (bottom-up) and top-down arrows labeled | | Variance/relational model | Core constructs and their specified links | Constructs as nodes; arrows labeled with proposition numbers and form (causal/moderating/mediating) | | Propositions table | There are many propositions | Pn | statement | underlying mechanism | boundary condition |

Design rules (what reviewers check)

• Every box is a defined construct. No box should appear that was not defined in the text.
• Every arrow is earned. Each arrow corresponds to a proposition or a stated mechanism; label it (e.g., "P3") so the figure and text are in lock-step.
• The mechanism is visible or cited. A bare arrow with no associated mechanism is decoration. If the space is tight, label the arrow with the proposition number whose mechanism the text supplies.
• The figure adds, not repeats. It should let a reader grasp the structure of the argument at a glance — not merely re-list the propositions.
• Levels and time are explicit when the theory is multi-level or processual.
• Consistency: construct labels in the figure match the text exactly; numbering matches.

The empirical-exhibit reframe (what each AMR exhibit replaces)

| Empirical sibling exhibit (AMJ/ASQ/SMJ) | AMR conceptual replacement | |-----------------------------------------|----------------------------| | Table 1: descriptive statistics / correlations | Construct-definition table (definitions + scope conditions) | | Regression / coefficient table | Propositions table (P1...Pn) | | Marginal-effects / interaction plot | Conceptual model figure with moderator arrows | | Event-study / time-series plot | Process model with stages and feedback loops |

If any exhibit reports a number estimated from data, the manuscript is a misfiled empirical paper. A construct-definition table also supports construct clarity (Suddaby, AMR 2010, DOI 10.5465/amr.2010.0419).

Propositions table template

| #  | Proposition (constructs + form)                  | Mechanism (why)         | Boundary condition |
|----|--------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|--------------------|
| P1 | The stronger A, the more likely B                | M1: ...                 | holds when C       |
| P2 | A's effect on B is amplified by D                | M2: ...                 | weakens when ...   |

Checklist

• [ ] Every box/node is a construct defined in the text
• [ ] Every arrow maps to a proposition or a stated mechanism, and is labeled
• [ ] The figure shows argument structure, not just a restatement
• [ ] Typologies use theory-derived dimensions; cells are MECE; transitions theorized if relevant
• [ ] Process models show stages, triggers, feedback, timing, and the driving engine
• [ ] Multi-level frameworks label emergence and top-down effects and the levels
• [ ] A propositions table accompanies any paper with more than ~4 propositions
• [ ] Figure labels and numbering match the text exactly
• [ ] Resolution / format meet AOM submission requirements (verify current guidelines)

Anti-patterns

• A "model" figure of boxes and arrows with no theoretical mechanism behind the arrows
• A figure introducing constructs that never appear in the text
• A typology whose dimensions were chosen for tidiness, not derived from theory
• Arrows with no direction or no form (is it causal? moderating? nobody can tell)
• A figure that simply re-renders the propositions list, adding nothing
• Decorative clip-art / gradients that obscure the logical structure

Output format

【Exhibit type】process / typology / multi-level / relational + propositions table
【Constructs shown】all defined in text? yes/no
【Arrows】each maps to Pn or mechanism? yes/no
【Adds beyond text?】shows structure / merely repeats (fix)
【Format check】meets AOM figure guidelines (verify)
【Next step】amr-writing-style